7 ms·

IMO the saddest part of it all is that many people seem to be choosing paths of division. I have different family members who are firmly inside bubbles on both

IMO the saddest part of it all is that many people seem to be choosing paths of division. I have different family members who are firmly inside bubbles on both sides of the political spectrum. And all of them are way too comfortable in parroting the divisive language they hear on their favorite network news channels. The terms right/left, red/blue, republican/democrat, conservative/liberal are commonly used with insulting tones towards opposing sides. And when they use these broad terms they seem totally content that they have made a strong argument on some issue that actually boils down to making huge over-generalizations of people, and over-simplifications of complex issues. I don't accept the demonization of fellow Americans based on bad faith arguments, but I sometimes I feel like this is a minority opinion. We should absolutely fight against specific events, behaviors, political rhetoric, and policies we disagree with. And sometimes individuals or small groups deserve to have their actions demonized as completely against our values. But looking for simple labels to place on literally millions of complex humans in order to point at simple answers to issues where simple answers don't exist is a fool's game.

aerovistae 6y ago
I am not aboard with this type of "both sides are problematic" thinking. Only one side denies climate change. Only one side denies medical consensus on vaccines and pandemic prevention techniques. Only one side is okay with mocking a disabled reporter (to pick one egregious example among countless). Yes, if you're red/republican/conservative/right, you're voting for those things, you're signing off on them. We don't need to "come together and find common ground" on those issues. We need to figure out how truth and decency lost their footing and slipped off the center stage.
- raunakdag 6y ago
  Well said. The “both sides” thinking only serves to take us even more the tipping point of a scale that’s been moved FAR too much to the extreme right. America isn’t a left/right nation anymore - it’s a far far right and center nation.
- Monobrow02 6y ago
  Your side good. Other side evil.
- glitcher 6y ago
  Good points, and I largely agree with you. My "both sides" observation was more to do with how I see so many people willing to disown each other in our individual lives', not so much about broader policies. There is no common ground to be found between believing or not believing in science. But there is common ground for us as individuals to see the humanity in each other. > Yes, if you're red/republican/conservative/right, you're voting for those things, you're signing off on them. I wish I were able to convey this better to some stubborn family members. The argument I hear is that they are voting for partial representation of their conservative values, and they are aware of the downsides of this choice. But I don't buy it. I think they are undervaluing the negative costs of that vote, or completely ignoring them.
- zucker42 6y ago
  First, the comment you replied to didn't argue both sides are problematic, just that not everyone who voted for Trump is a bad person. Both sides being problematic also doesn't imply that one side isn't more problematic than the other. I think it's crazy that so many people voted for Trump and honestly believe he's the best person to run the country. I'd have a hard time respecting someone who didn't see how bad Trump was in a lot of ways. But I think most people on the left seem to have no idea why anybody would vote for Trump, and don't realize that is more of an indictment of the extent they are out of touch with 49% of the country, rather than an indication of the idiocy of their political opponents. An effective rejection of Trumpism must first involve understanding and relating to the people who supported him, and I think a lot of people are lamenting the general lack of interest in such discourse. Edit: fixed two words which drastically changed the meaning of sentence.
  - aerovistae 6y ago
    Sure, but when you engage on why they voted for Trump, you receive a litany of mistruths and nonsense and it goes nowhere. Biden is going to raise taxes! Biden is going to take away guns! Hunter Biden's corruption! It's pretty hard to have a conversation when a third party is honking and playing a tuba five feet away, and that's essentially what Fox News, Facebook, Breitbart, et al are doing.
    - andrewclunn 6y ago
      You would, but we were banned long ago if we made anything approaching valid points on places like this. Your ignorance is the result of the bubble, which follows from censorship. You cannot see it because the censorship makes the edges of your bubble invisible to you.
      - golergka 6y ago
        And to make it even more ironic, this comment was dead, and invisible to most HN readers.
      - aerovistae 6y ago
- dnissley 6y ago
  How do we reunite then? If we are constantly going on about how bad one side is (fwiw, I basically agree with you about that), then it will only lead to more division and resentment. Based on my in group's behavior, it seems like most people who believe this think that continuing to publicly shame and wag fingers at the other side is how we get to a better world. And it so clearly is not. I'm frustrated by this, but also truly searching for solutions or alternative explanations.
  - lopmotr 6y ago
    Simple solution is to not try to "solve" anything. Just be accepting of people who hold different opinions. I'm sure you would be tolerant of someone who believes Mohammed was the messenger of God. Nutty beliefs don't get much more serious than that when you consider the content of those messages.
- listenallyall 6y ago
  Look, an objective observer might say, only one side advocates for abortion. You might personally dismiss it and say it's a woman's right, but you have to at least acknowledge that people who equate abortion to a form of murder aren't totally out-of-line. Point being, anyone can pick and choose a handful of issues (and ignore others) to "prove" that anyone who votes for [insert party here] is morally bankrupt.
  - aerovistae 6y ago
    You make a fairly excellent point about the nature of debate and public opinion. However, denial of scientific and historical fact is not something "anyone" can find instances of for "[insert party here]". Only on the right does that occur.
    - dnissley 6y ago
      That's no longer true unfortunately. Denialism on the left about certain things is becoming rampant: - Blacks commit far more crime than other racial groups. There are sociological explanations for this, but that is currently a fact, and one that people on the left do mental backflips to avoid acknowledging. - Gender pay gap in most industries is small or non-existent once you adjust for experience and other factors. Not to say that there is no discrimination at all, but this is another thing people on the left can't or don't want to acknowledge. Those are just two among many.
      - aerovistae 6y ago
        Hmm. But what if you reframe the data? Instead of "Blacks commit more crimes than other racial groups", you're more likely to get on the path of finding constructive solutions by framing it as "People who grew up in predominantly black neighborhoods commit more crimes than those who grew up in predominantly non-black neighborhoods." I mean, I think we've pretty well established that crime isn't genetic. It's environmental. So why frame it as if the opposite were true? I haven't studied the demographic data at length recently, but fairly sure that your assertion does not hold for high income blacks. I have no comment on the pay gap, I don't know much about it.
- xandroo 6y ago
  > Only one side denies medical consensus on vaccines You’re incorrect about this one AFAIK. From the Safety of Childhood MMR Vaccine section of [0]: > There are no differences between party groups about this issue. Moderates are a bit more likely than either conservatives or liberals to say that childhood vaccines are generally safe. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/01/chapter-5-public-views-about-biomedical-issues/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/01/chapter-5-pub...
  - thomastjeffery 6y ago
    That's talking about voters, not candidates.
- taharvey 6y ago
  Totally agreed. The biggest problem in the political discussion is false equivalency. If one side doesn't believe in truth, facts and science, and the other side defends them as fundamental to everything... than those are not equivalent positions. This has been largely a one-sided war on decency. Don't kill the messenger.
- baked-in 6y ago
  "Only one side is crazy and stupid" Thanks for your contribution to fighting divisiveness. I wish you good luck in your quest.
- hnracer 6y ago
  The disabled reporter example isn't what it seems. Trump had done that identical style of mocking to many non-disabled individuals before doing it to the disabled individual, most likely he didn't even know the reporter was disabled, it was just a way that Trump mocks people. The media framed it as though Trump was specifically picking on his disability even though this historical context (which they omitted on purpose) makes that explanation unlikely. This is, of course, no defence of Trump's behavior in this instance.
- odessacubbage 6y ago
  maybe it has something to do with career war-mongers and sanctioneers campaigning on their 'decency' or pathological liars who waged a vindictive, no holds barred war against whistleblowers espousing themselves to be defenders of the 'truth' i do not have to like or support trump to think that joe biden is a lifelong robber barron and his return to normalcy will be marked by suffering around the world and absolute blindness towards the the deaths of despair happening within our own country.
CivBase 6y ago
What really saddens me is that both sides recognize this problem in their opposition but never in their side. Or if they do recognize it, it's quickly hand-waved away because when their side does it, it's for the "greater good". The political double standards keep reaching new heights.
m0llusk 6y ago
When people focus on the details of strategies for success in facing our shared problems it is relatively easy to test ideas and get people from all political views on board with effective solutions. When people focus on identifying and criticizing enemies it turns people off, builds barriers, and prevents the generation and spread of effective strategies for facing shared challenges.

aerovistae 6y ago

I am not aboard with this type of "both sides are problematic" thinking. Only one side denies climate change. Only one side denies medical consensus on vaccines and pandemic prevention techniques. Only one side is okay with mocking a disabled reporter (to pick one egregious example among countless). Yes, if you're red/republican/conservative/right, you're voting for those things, you're signing off on them. We don't need to "come together and find common ground" on those issues. We need to figure out how truth and decency lost their footing and slipped off the center stage.

raunakdag 6y ago
Well said. The “both sides” thinking only serves to take us even more the tipping point of a scale that’s been moved FAR too much to the extreme right. America isn’t a left/right nation anymore - it’s a far far right and center nation.
Monobrow02 6y ago
Your side good. Other side evil.
glitcher 6y ago
Good points, and I largely agree with you. My "both sides" observation was more to do with how I see so many people willing to disown each other in our individual lives', not so much about broader policies. There is no common ground to be found between believing or not believing in science. But there is common ground for us as individuals to see the humanity in each other. > Yes, if you're red/republican/conservative/right, you're voting for those things, you're signing off on them. I wish I were able to convey this better to some stubborn family members. The argument I hear is that they are voting for partial representation of their conservative values, and they are aware of the downsides of this choice. But I don't buy it. I think they are undervaluing the negative costs of that vote, or completely ignoring them.
zucker42 6y ago
First, the comment you replied to didn't argue both sides are problematic, just that not everyone who voted for Trump is a bad person. Both sides being problematic also doesn't imply that one side isn't more problematic than the other. I think it's crazy that so many people voted for Trump and honestly believe he's the best person to run the country. I'd have a hard time respecting someone who didn't see how bad Trump was in a lot of ways. But I think most people on the left seem to have no idea why anybody would vote for Trump, and don't realize that is more of an indictment of the extent they are out of touch with 49% of the country, rather than an indication of the idiocy of their political opponents. An effective rejection of Trumpism must first involve understanding and relating to the people who supported him, and I think a lot of people are lamenting the general lack of interest in such discourse. Edit: fixed two words which drastically changed the meaning of sentence.
- aerovistae 6y ago
  Sure, but when you engage on why they voted for Trump, you receive a litany of mistruths and nonsense and it goes nowhere. Biden is going to raise taxes! Biden is going to take away guns! Hunter Biden's corruption! It's pretty hard to have a conversation when a third party is honking and playing a tuba five feet away, and that's essentially what Fox News, Facebook, Breitbart, et al are doing.
  - andrewclunn 6y ago
    You would, but we were banned long ago if we made anything approaching valid points on places like this. Your ignorance is the result of the bubble, which follows from censorship. You cannot see it because the censorship makes the edges of your bubble invisible to you.
    - golergka 6y ago
      And to make it even more ironic, this comment was dead, and invisible to most HN readers.
    - aerovistae 6y ago
dnissley 6y ago
How do we reunite then? If we are constantly going on about how bad one side is (fwiw, I basically agree with you about that), then it will only lead to more division and resentment. Based on my in group's behavior, it seems like most people who believe this think that continuing to publicly shame and wag fingers at the other side is how we get to a better world. And it so clearly is not. I'm frustrated by this, but also truly searching for solutions or alternative explanations.
- lopmotr 6y ago
  Simple solution is to not try to "solve" anything. Just be accepting of people who hold different opinions. I'm sure you would be tolerant of someone who believes Mohammed was the messenger of God. Nutty beliefs don't get much more serious than that when you consider the content of those messages.
listenallyall 6y ago
Look, an objective observer might say, only one side advocates for abortion. You might personally dismiss it and say it's a woman's right, but you have to at least acknowledge that people who equate abortion to a form of murder aren't totally out-of-line. Point being, anyone can pick and choose a handful of issues (and ignore others) to "prove" that anyone who votes for [insert party here] is morally bankrupt.
- aerovistae 6y ago
  You make a fairly excellent point about the nature of debate and public opinion. However, denial of scientific and historical fact is not something "anyone" can find instances of for "[insert party here]". Only on the right does that occur.
  - dnissley 6y ago
    That's no longer true unfortunately. Denialism on the left about certain things is becoming rampant: - Blacks commit far more crime than other racial groups. There are sociological explanations for this, but that is currently a fact, and one that people on the left do mental backflips to avoid acknowledging. - Gender pay gap in most industries is small or non-existent once you adjust for experience and other factors. Not to say that there is no discrimination at all, but this is another thing people on the left can't or don't want to acknowledge. Those are just two among many.
    - aerovistae 6y ago
      Hmm. But what if you reframe the data? Instead of "Blacks commit more crimes than other racial groups", you're more likely to get on the path of finding constructive solutions by framing it as "People who grew up in predominantly black neighborhoods commit more crimes than those who grew up in predominantly non-black neighborhoods." I mean, I think we've pretty well established that crime isn't genetic. It's environmental. So why frame it as if the opposite were true? I haven't studied the demographic data at length recently, but fairly sure that your assertion does not hold for high income blacks. I have no comment on the pay gap, I don't know much about it.
xandroo 6y ago
> Only one side denies medical consensus on vaccines You’re incorrect about this one AFAIK. From the Safety of Childhood MMR Vaccine section of [0]: > There are no differences between party groups about this issue. Moderates are a bit more likely than either conservatives or liberals to say that childhood vaccines are generally safe. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/01/chapter-5-public-views-about-biomedical-issues/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/01/chapter-5-pub...
- thomastjeffery 6y ago
  That's talking about voters, not candidates.
taharvey 6y ago
Totally agreed. The biggest problem in the political discussion is false equivalency. If one side doesn't believe in truth, facts and science, and the other side defends them as fundamental to everything... than those are not equivalent positions. This has been largely a one-sided war on decency. Don't kill the messenger.
baked-in 6y ago
"Only one side is crazy and stupid" Thanks for your contribution to fighting divisiveness. I wish you good luck in your quest.
hnracer 6y ago
The disabled reporter example isn't what it seems. Trump had done that identical style of mocking to many non-disabled individuals before doing it to the disabled individual, most likely he didn't even know the reporter was disabled, it was just a way that Trump mocks people. The media framed it as though Trump was specifically picking on his disability even though this historical context (which they omitted on purpose) makes that explanation unlikely. This is, of course, no defence of Trump's behavior in this instance.
odessacubbage 6y ago
maybe it has something to do with career war-mongers and sanctioneers campaigning on their 'decency' or pathological liars who waged a vindictive, no holds barred war against whistleblowers espousing themselves to be defenders of the 'truth' i do not have to like or support trump to think that joe biden is a lifelong robber barron and his return to normalcy will be marked by suffering around the world and absolute blindness towards the the deaths of despair happening within our own country.

CivBase 6y ago

What really saddens me is that both sides recognize this problem in their opposition but never in their side. Or if they do recognize it, it's quickly hand-waved away because when their side does it, it's for the "greater good". The political double standards keep reaching new heights.

m0llusk 6y ago

When people focus on the details of strategies for success in facing our shared problems it is relatively easy to test ideas and get people from all political views on board with effective solutions. When people focus on identifying and criticizing enemies it turns people off, builds barriers, and prevents the generation and spread of effective strategies for facing shared challenges.